Dodging Clarke’s Charges

By Gus Tyler

Published April 09, 2004, issue of April 09, 2004.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Richard Clarke, top anti-terrorism adviser to several presidents — Republican and Democrat — has written a bombshell of a book about the Bush administration’s handling of terrorist threats. Clarke’s revelations have shaken up the White House. Clarke charges that Bush paid him no mind when he brought the issue of the threat of an Al Qaeda attack to the president’s attention before September 11, 2001. Clarke further charges that he was pressed by Bush to get evidence that would justify an assault on Iraq.

Clarke repeated these charges under oath before a congressional committee investigating the government’s failure to detect and act on the warning signs of a terrorist assault.

As of this writing, the only answers offered by the administration do not attempt to disprove Clarke’s charges. Instead, the White House has indulged in using a logical fallacy, called argumentum ad hominem. Instead of refuting the charges, the answer has been to disparage Clarke’s motives. To wit: Clarke is making these charges because he is a secret Democrat, because he was passed over for promotion, because he wants a big readership for his book. All of which or none of which may be true. Yet the administration does not seem to feel called upon to explain. And maybe Bush and his well-oiled friend Vice President Dick Cheney have good reason not to reveal their real reason.

The real reason may run all the way back to the 1950s in Iran. After the 1951 assassination of Iran’s Prime Minister Ali Razmara, Mohammed Mossadegh took his place and nationalized the oil industry. The British were furious. Iran was No. 2, on the heels of Saudi Arabia, in oil output. The Brits contacted the U.S. for a joint venture. The CIA and its British counterpart met in Cyprus to draft plans to oust Mossadegh. They were successful in a 1953 coup that killed 300. The lords of oil in the U.K. and the United States cheered.

But they were not satisfied. Close behind Iran in oil output comes Iraq. Saddam Hussein nationalized the oil industry shortly after he came to power. There were no viable forces in Iraq to oust Hussein. The only way to do in Iraq what the U.K. and the United States did in Iran was to wage a war that would bring “regime change.”

But what reason was there for the U.S. to declare war on Iraq? No doubt, Bush was eager to hear from Clarke that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Clarke’s generalized warnings about a terror machine (Al Qaeda) must have seemed like a distraction.

Bush and Clarke probably never imagined anything like September 11. But when it came, it stirred the fear and fury among the American people that were skillfully exploited to justify a pre-emptive war, although Hussein had nothing at all to do with September 11.

At present, U.S. policy is not to denationalize the Iraqi oil industry. Why indulge in such a takeover when there is no need to do so? If Iraq becomes a client state of the U.S., Uncle Sam (read Cheney and Bush) would in effect control Iraq’s oil industry. The key word here is “if.” Whether Iraq can be turned into a submissive satellite is iffy and, in retrospect, our pre-emptive war may prove to have been a blunder. All of which might make good reading in a book titled “Malice in Blunderland.”






Find us on Facebook!
  • "'What’s this, mommy?' she asked, while pulling at the purple sleeve to unwrap this mysterious little gift mom keeps hidden in the inside pocket of her bag. Oh boy, how do I answer?"
  • "I fear that we are witnessing the end of politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I see no possibility for resolution right now. I look into the future and see only a void." What do you think?
  • Not a gazillionaire? Take the "poor door."
  • "We will do what we must to protect our people. We have that right. We are not less deserving of life and quiet than anyone else. No more apologies."
  • "Woody Allen should have quit while he was ahead." Ezra Glinter's review of "Magic in the Moonlight": http://jd.fo/f4Q1Q
  • Jon Stewart responds to his critics: “Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this. But just merely mentioning Israel or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel’s policies is not the same thing as being pro-Hamas.”
  • "My bat mitzvah party took place in our living room. There were only a few Jewish kids there, and only one from my Sunday school class. She sat in the corner, wearing the right clothes, asking her mom when they could go." The latest in our Promised Lands series — what state should we visit next?
  • Former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror: “A cease-fire will mean that anytime Hamas wants to fight it can. Occupation of Gaza will bring longer-term quiet, but the price will be very high.” What do you think?
  • Should couples sign a pre-pregnancy contract, outlining how caring for the infant will be equally divided between the two parties involved? Just think of it as a ketubah for expectant parents:
  • Many #Israelis can't make it to bomb shelters in time. One of them is Amos Oz.
  • According to Israeli professor Mordechai Kedar, “the only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or their mother will be raped."
  • Why does ultra-Orthodox group Agudath Israel of America receive its largest donation from the majority owners of Walmart? Find out here: http://jd.fo/q4XfI
  • Woody Allen on the situation in #Gaza: It's “a terrible, tragic thing. Innocent lives are lost left and right, and it’s a horrible situation that eventually has to right itself.”
  • "Mark your calendars: It was on Sunday, July 20, that the momentum turned against Israel." J.J. Goldberg's latest analysis on Israel's ground operation in Gaza:
  • What do you think?
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.